Sleep on RTI queries, babus tell juniors

CHENNAI: Seeking and giving information under Right to Information Act has been a cat-and-mouse game for citizens and officials since the legislation came into effect in October, 2005. Now, senior bureaucrats are giving crash courses to public information officers (PIOs) on how to delay or deny information to applicants.

At informal sessions, officers coach PIOs - responsible for giving information under the act - how to redirect queries or give vague replies. A PIO working for a university was asked to delay a file the applicant sought for inspection as the legal cell had to scrutinise it. "First, I was asked to go on leave for a week. Then I had to say the section officer was on leave. The applicant, who should have been given the file in 45 days, got it after 60 days," said the PIO. The officials, however, are careful not to give these instructions in writing, as they could also be open to scrutiny under the act.

A scientist at a national institute, to whom an RTI application was forwarded, said his senior was unhappy that he readily gave the details. "Asking for information is their job," he quoted his boss as telling him, "Not giving away everything is part of our job." The scientist said the senior administrator gave him a few tips on how to intentionally misdirect queries to delay things. "While RTI activists are well versed with the act and pursue applications, many common people who seek information give up after long delays. This is the guiding reason for creating barricades," he added.

That explains why the number of appeals filed before the State Information Commission has gone up. The commission does not have statistics on the overall RTI applications received by various departments. Neither does it have the total number of appeals (an applicant files an appeal with the commission if he/she isn't satisfied with the reply he receives from the PIO). But it says the number of appeals it disposed till September 2012 has gone up to 8,607 from 4,579 in 2011. State CIC K S Sripathi said he was not aware of any such training to delay replies.

RTI appeals pile up as officials stonewall queries

Appeals against denial or delay of information under RTI have been piling up with the state information commission to the point that the commission lost count. RTI activists attribute this increase in appeals partly to the practice of senior officials training public information officers (PIOs) on ways to delay replies.

Applicants approach the state commission when their RTI queries are not replied by government departments. State chief information commissioner K S Sripathi admits that the number of appeals has been going up, but he does not know the exact number of pending appeals or the reasons for the delay. "We try to dispose appeals as soon as they come to us," he said, denying knowledge of officials training PIOs to fob off applicants. But many RTI activists disagree.

In most cases, senior officials or heads of department help PIOs draft the replies, said advocate and RTI activist V S Suresh. "Some of the replies are diplomatic, some are unreasonable and others are just stupid," he said.

Replies to RTI applications filed by TOI shows that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board chose to ignore a question on defaulters, forcing us to go on appeal. Chennai Corporation found another way to stonewall questions by saying, "We do not have enough manpower or financial resources to provide the information." The state information commission, which is the implementing authority, has flouted the rule that a reply should be given in 30 days. An application by TOI has been pending since October.

While the more enthusiastic ones among PIOs say they don't have the promised autonomy, many find the job an additional burden that doesn't pay extra. "I have to work a lot to get information for every application. Why would I do that when I get nothing for it?" asked a PIO at the state secretariat.

The state chief information commissioner has powers to initiate action against PIOs who don't act on applications. Officials said they have issued show-cause notices to PIOs who don't give proper replies on time, but they did not have any number or details of action taken against such PIOs.

"Anyway," Sripathi said, "what we want is better awareness, not just penalties." Lack of manpower and absence of digitised information also delay replies. Sections 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1)(b) of the Act speaks of regular cataloguing and indexing of registers in every office. But despite instructions from the state information commission, many departments don't upload revised information on their system. Some officials misuse of RTI by some applications should also be blamed for the pile-up. An official with the state information commission noted that several people seek information on several lands pattas to blackmail landholders. "We have received 55 RTI applications from one applicant seeking details of various land deals," he said.

Activists say the purpose of RTI is defeated if officials delay information. "The information commission has to take stringent action against officials who refuse to give information," said Banu Kumar, executive director, Fifth Pillar, an NGO that backs the use of RTI.